Michael Schwendt wrote:
There are first-time revievers and people, who are afraid of doing
mistakes in reviews and who therefore don't review anything to stay on
the safe side.
Perhaps we could ask that people with little package activity after
having there package accepted need to perform at least one review per
year. This sort of says "I'm keeping up with the guidelines".
Encourage them to ask for a review of their review
prior to approval. Reward active contributors with becoming a
I like this bit, even though not really related to the reward process.
In eg mozilla, changes on the source code require the developer put
patches on a bug, requests review, reviewer makes comments, to help
improve patch, developer updates patch. Eventually reviewer may sign
off, then a superreviewer needs to be found who oversees a major area of
the source. Only once both r+ and sr+ have provided signoff, are commits
to cvs allowed.
In Fedora packaging, I'm sure there are people who are experts in
general areas like java packaging, gnome desktop, multimedia etc, who
could be called on to check over a package where the main reviewer sees
is otherwise ready to be accepted.
DaveT.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
